Is Plato's tripartite soul a plausible way to think about human nature?

Answer 1

Plato's understanding that the soul has three parts is at least an initially fruitful way to begin to think about human nature. The context of his discussion is important. He is thinking of a well-ordered Republic that is a harmony of three different classes of people in which each class has its own function. This is supposed to be like a well-ordered soul that is a harmony of three different functions.

One part has appetites, desires, cravings, or impulses. Another part has reason or conceptual thinking. The third (spirited) part is really an in-between part that can receive commands from reason and control the desires.

We do learn analogically, in other words, by comparing similarities and differences. The only way to evaluate whether or not an analogy is good is to think it through by comparing the qualities of the two supposedly similar objects. This thinking can be fruitful even if one ultimately rejects an analogy.

This is why Plato's view of the tripartite soul is, minimally, a good starting point for thinking about the nature of being human. Presumably, he wanted us to think it through for ourselves. Also, it is obviously a richer understanding than any view of human nature that would be less complex.

It does seem that it's correct that we have desires, that we are able to think conceptually, and that we are able to control our desires. That does make this view initially plausible.

On the other hand, it does not answer two other important questions. First, is there some additional essential aspect of human nature? Many thinkers have argued in various ways that there is. Second, what is the soul itself? Which object has these supposedly essential qualities? In particular, is it something capable of change or not? Plato suggests in some dialogues that it is capable of change, which means that it is a continuant (something that exists through time).

If so, what is it? Once it is separated in thought from its qualities, how could one even think about it? On the other hand, perhaps upon serious examination it turns out to be wholly empty. This fundamental ontological problem is one that doesn't just apply to human beings; it applies to understanding the nature of all individuals.

Without clear answers to these questions, Plato's understanding of the tripartite soul is implausible as it stands. In other words, whether one finds Plato's view congenial depends upon one's own understanding of human nature.

If Plato stimulates us to think harder about human nature, Plato would be pleased.